justalayman: First of all, thank you for putting forth somewhat of a sound debat that shows a logical train of thought. Now...
recap... (common sence)
1- Seatbelts save lives (your argument, not mine, implies death will result if not wearing one) = more injuries not resulting in death (your implied argument is that the accidents in question are serious enough to result in death; therefore, common sence would tell you that injuries in the accident would be inevitable reguardless if the life is saved or not.) = more extended hospital expenses (Fact: not many dead people run up large hospital expenses) = more people claiming disability or more vegetables (could only be true if the accident didn't result in death "seatbelts save lives") which SS will spend a lot of money not only until they die but if they have dependents, continue to pay to their children (could be true weather wearing a seatbelt or not).
As for any studies to support my claims, no. My claim that the injuries without a seatbelt leading to instant death and those using seatbelts result in incompacitating injuries is not supported (and more than likely exaggerated); however, neither is your claim that if I'm involved in an accident, by wearing a seatbelt, it will save my life. As for this being an unsubstantiated hypothesis, so are all of your "millions of hours" of studies. There is no way on Earth that sicence can tell the results of an outcome of an accident that never occured. Studies can show a probibality favorable to saving a life, but even those studies can not be conclusive. You yourself have given some fine examples of this. Here's another one. A guy I know was racing his Camaro. He jumped a ditch and the car rolled several times before coming to a stop. The car was completely demolished. He was thrown safely from the car on the first filp and literally walked away from the accident. By looking at the car, I would be inclined to say that he would have been killed if he had stayed in the car, but that statement can never be substantiated. It's just a favorible Hypothesis. So are all of your studies that show that if someone was wearing a seatbelt, their life would have been saved in an accident is an unsubstantiated hypothesis.
2- Every other law that the seatbelt law has been compared to (speeding, traffic signs, larceny, auto registeration, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, etc...) I have shown how these laws have a DIRECT affect on OTHER peoples safety, road maintenance expense, protection of minors unable to make sound decisions for themselves, etc...
If irrelevent, why was the argument made that these laws were no different than the seatbelt law. Additionally, as for situations in which not wearing a seatbelt can affect the drivers ability to control the vehicle has already been addressed in a previous debate. Feel free to go back and read it again.
3. If the other laws were being properly enforced (speeding, DUI, reckless driving, etc...)
the odds of a fatal accident is reduced to nearly nothing.
"I had a police officer relate a story of an accident he responded to where the driver was traveling ~25 mph (in a 45 zone) lost control and since not wearing a seatbelt had the stem of her visor impaled into her forehead. Speed?,not a factor. I have met a man driving in excess of 60 mph (60 mph) on a motorcycle that slammed into a concrete wall. Very minimal injries. For all practical purposes, he walked away from the accident." By quoting you, I support my claim that accidents are unpredictable and studies can only show probilities favorable or unfavorable.
I never claimed to support multiplying the police forces and their traffic control. I mearly mentioned a fact. More accidents result in death when other laws are being broken. As for the enforcement of the other laws resulting in no fatalities in any traffic accidents, your statement not mine. I said, and I quote, "the odds of a fatal accident is reduced to NEARLY nothing". Please don't put words in my mouth and then tell me they're wrong.
4- You didn't claim it, but "It's the law" was another arguement in defence brought up by another supporter of the seatbelt law earlier. I showed that just because it's law doesn't mean that it's legal. Sometimes laws are abolished because they are unfair and unjust and violated other peoples rights.
"Millions of hours of study"? Now I want to see the location of the support for your claim. Million(S) imply more than one. Let's say 2Million. It would take 50 people, working 12 hour days, 9.14 years without weekends, holidays nor sick leave to establish that. Wow, that much time went into it. Who's tax dollars paid for that?
5- "In general, seatbelts have been PROVEN to save lives and reduce injuries. There are studies to support this." I'm trying my best not to argue with you on this point. In general, I agree. What I don't agree with is a law that takes away my ability to make a decision for myself; thereby, taking away my freedoms. My argument is that the law is unjust and any fine associated with it is excessive and violates my civil rights.
Let's say for the sake of argument that I yielded to your logic (which I don't, but let's say I do), let's see what happens. I have an accident and I'm wearing my seatbelt. The seatbelt saves my life, I have little to no injuries thanks to the seatbelt, and I live a perfectly normal life. Well, at some point in time, I'm giong to retire. At that point in time I'm going to start drawing my Social Security (which is a direct expense to the government which is a direct tax to everyone drawing a paycheck). I will also qualify for Medicare and/or Medicaid (which also are direct government expenses and directly connected to taxes) which cover my medical expenses and medications. Let's face it, by this time, I'm getting older and having more medical problems and expenses. My children, if I have any, decide to put me in a nursing home. Who do you think pays for it all. The government or a private insurnace. Was there any expenses saved or were they just postponed?
Please send me the references to the studies to prove seatbelts reduce the overall expenses involved in accidents. I really would like to see them. After all, they must exist, that is why the seatbelt laws were enacted.
The answer to my question, an auto accident or obesity, does make a difference. You're looking at it the wrong way. If the lessor one is made illegal, by right, the more serious one should be made illegal. One could use all of the same arguements in support of the new law making obesity illegal. After all there is no Constitional right allowing me to be overweight. (That's sarcasm.) Besides, being overweight which causes so many health problems affects everyone. Remember the seatbelt argument. So, why don't we pass a law making obesity illegal. We could arrest everyone over a certain weight limit based on height, make them eat a restricted and supervised diet, and force them to go through a daily exercise program. On top of that, we can fine them for the cost of their entire rehab expense. After all, even with some genetic cause, weight can be controlled. Congress has just as much right to pass that law as it does the seatbelt law. Both protect people from themselves,and both save the general population from an avoidable expense. (Once again, sarcasm.)
Just returning fire. Bang Bang.
Quote:
"for the same reason we could not make a law that does not allow a phuysical attribute that may or may not have at least some genetic cause. You cannot outlaw blue eyed people nor brown eyed people because one of them has better night vision and are therefore safer night time drivers and less safe during the day." Maybe not, but you can force them to wear glasses if there sight is considered less than desireable and they want a drivers license. That law exist.
Bang again
